Philipstown Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

June 29, 2004

The Philipstown Planning Board held its regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 at the VFW Hall, Kemble Avenue, Cold Spring, New York. The meeting was opened at 7:30 by the acting Chair, Josephine Doherty.

Present: Josephine Doherty

Michael Gibbons

Kerry Meehan

Anthony Merante

Andrew Pidala

Pat Sexton

Tim Miller, Planner

Josh Moreinis

Absent: George Cleantis, Chairman

Tim Pagones, Counsel

Correspondence

1. Copy of letter from Tim Miller Associates to the Philipstown Planning Board regarding approval of access applications in Continental Village.

2. Response to a letter the Planning Board received from Suzie Gilbert regarding Route 9 and code enforcement issues.

3. Planning and Zoning Summer Schools announcement.

4. Copy of letter from Robert Koch regarding Mountain Trace application.

5. Copy of letter from Bill Mazzuca to Tim Miller regarding Carlson property on Torchia Road.

6. Referral of Local Law from the Town Board.

7. Report from Town of Cortlandt regarding the Angell application.

8. Revised schedule for completion of the Comprehensive Plan.

Regular Meeting

Santucci (Mountain Trace) - Subdivision Application - Canopus Hollow/Sprout Brook Road, Town of Philipstown: Revised Plan and EAF Parts 1, 2, and 3

Ms. Doherty stated that Town Planner, Tim Miller had recused himself in this application and that Mr. Allen of Bibbo Associates, who had reviewed the application and the engineering aspects of the application, was present.

Mr. Steinmetz said that when they last appeared before the Planning Board, they were there in connection with a five lot subdivision that had been reviewed by the Board’s various consultants and had been the subject of a lot of comment from the public. In response to making comments they had received from the Board and members of the public and receiving technical comments from both the planning and engineering consultants, their clients elected to revise the application, modify the proposed subdivision and were before the Board tonight with a four-lot subdivision, having eliminated what seemingly was the controversial fifth lot. Mr. Steinmetz said that he wanted Mr. Wegner to take the Board through the changes made, why they were made, and the benefits they thought resulted to the property and surrounding area from an environmental and aesthetic standpoint. He said that they could also acknowledge that they received Mr. Allen’s memorandum of comments, many of which had already been undertaken by Mr. Cronin’s office.

Mr. Ron Wegner stated that all four lots proposed would be a minimum of five acres in size and would gain access to (inaudible) with a proposed 975 foot long open development area private way. Each lot would be served by an individual sewage septic system and well. He said that Lot One would have a separate driveway off the end of the proposed cul-de-sacs and Lots Two, Three and Four would have a common driveway. Mr. Wegner said that the current proposal provides a reduction in site disturbances compared to the previous five lot subdivision, with the reduction of the additional lot. He said that they had been able to shorten the private way by a total of 725 feet with the creation of the common driveway and the elimination of the previously proposed storm water ponds. The ponds were eliminated due to the reduction of site disturbance - previously six acres, and are now down to 3.8 acres. Mr. Wegner said that this was in accordance with the New York State DEC requirements. He said that the reduction of the site disturbance under five acres eliminates their requirement to provide the ponds. The revised layout eliminates almost all the site disturbances within a hundred foot approximate buffer area to an adjacent wetland with the use of a common driveway, versus the previous road, which was near a wetland finger. Mr. Wegner said that drainage toward a twenty four inch corrugated metal pipe underneath the house would be reduced with the proposal, and they are diverting storm water toward the southern direction at the request of the County. He said that if the Board felt it could move forward with this plan, they could finalize it and address any comments of the Board.

Mr. Gibbons referred to the common drive to the three houses and said that the idea of having the right-of-way going up there for four houses, approximately eight cars, is for the travel way. He said that they are eliminating two cars. Mr. Gibbons said that they end up with six cars and they are trying to reduce it to ten feet wide, and to him, it is not a common driveway.

Mr. Steinmetz said that he understood and appreciated their intent. He said that there was nothing that they are aware of that precludes their ability to prepare and present to the Board a common drive like any other common drive in the Town. Mr. Steinmetz said that it is based upon its width, the specifications, and the people who use it. He said that the Town, as he understood it, allows up to three homes on a common driveway. Mr. Steinmetz said that Mr. Gibbons was correct - there will be three homes serviced after the cul-de-sac and they certainly want to make sure that any of the homeowners accessing off of that private road would have safe, functional access to their homes and emergency vehicles as well. He said that as they understand it based upon the design, it was a safe way to get to the houses and, in fact, a year ago they were told that the turning radius on the site and the grade of the roads were acceptable. Mr. Steinmetz said that since that time, they have reduced the length of the widest part of the road and by doing that, have minimized the drainage and disturbance - all of which is a benefit to the environmental impacts. He said that if there was a safety issue they were unaware of, they were prepared to address it.

Mr. Gibbons said that when he gets a new set of prints, he would walk the property.

Mr. Pidala asked if the utilities would be put underground.

Mr. Wegner said that generally the electricity would be overhead along with cable, individual wells, and septics.

Mr. Pidala asked if they considered putting them underground.

Mr. Wegner said that they have not. He said that generally for this distance, through the terrain, overhead would be most serviceable.

Mr. Pidala said that if they talked to the Company, they might do it for free.

Mr. Wegner said that they would consider that.

Mr. Merante asked what the difference in grade was between this road and the previous road.

Mr. Wegner stated that it is identical. He said that the width is the same - a sixteen foot travel way with hardened surface on it.

Mr. Merante asked what the texture of the road was.

Mr. Wegner said asphalt.

Mr. Merante asked, chip stone or blacktop.

Mr. Wegner said blacktop.

Mr. Allen stated that their main concern regarding the subdivision was the drainage. He said that they concur with Cronin Engineering that the main drainage (inaudible) and the reduction of the served area less than five acres does not warrant a DEC permit. Mr. Allen said that they are concerned with this locally, not withstanding the State requirements. He said that there is a wetland there and they are concerned that water has not increased or decreased. Mr. Allen said that also, there is a stream that runs down through the corridor, which flows on to property and through a driveway of the neighboring property below and they are concerned that this is worsened. Mr. Allen said that otherwise, in terms of the increases or decreases, Cronin Engineering was correct in terms of their analysis, but he thought that locally, they would have to provide calculations to the Board to demonstrate that they are not worsening any local conditions of the immediate neighboring properties. He said that additionally, they are tying into the County storm drains which they would need County permits for and they should provide correspondence to that effect and some review from the County.

Mr. Wegner said that they would provide the correspondence.

Mr. Allen said that they were creating five plus acre lots, so realistically they would probably be larger. He said that the disturbance (inaudible), and particularly along the left side of the main road coming in, they are showing what would be the rock cut, which is probably realistic. Mr. Allen said that when you cut rock, you cut back on a slope that is probably eight to one, but it needs to be confirmed, because if the rock is not sound or if they hit some earth in the area, it could be substantially more of a cut and more disturbance to the property. He said that guide rails will obviously be required in terms of the cuts and embankments, but for the most part, those were the major points of their comments with regard to the engineering aspects of the plan.

Mr. Steinmetz said that they did receive the comments, and Mr. Cronin’s office and Mr. Wegner would be addressing them for the next submission.

Ms. Doherty asked if before the next submission they should send the prior submission to Pat Cleary, as he would be handling the planning aspects of the application.

Mr. Wegner said that he would

Mr. Brower said that as a former member of the Planning Board and now a Town Board member, he had some concern about the emergency access to the three houses. He said that the whole point of the O.D.A and the cul-de-sac on the end of it was for turnarounds for emergency service vehicles. Mr. Brower said that if there was a fire in one of those houses, there would be four or five pieces of apparatus up there. He asked if he understood correctly that they would have a ten foot wide driveway.

Mr. Wegner said that he believed the common driveway would most likely be fourteen.

Mr. Brower said that either way, once they get a half dozen pieces of apparatus to the last home, there is no place to go, and he suggested they look at that very carefully.

Mr. Steinmetz said that they have, in other communities, created turning areas to provide some type of hardened surface that would accommodate the largest (inaudible), so that a vehicle could pull over and turn out.

Mr. Brower said that again, it was a major issue.

Mr. Merante said that he would like to reinforce what Mr. Pidala said, because in going through some of the previous minutes, the Board’s Planner had strongly urged the Board to push for applicants to place utilities underground on new developments. He said that they have not done it in the past, but have problems with especially wooded areas, steep areas, snow storms, etc.

Mr. Merante said that they have been complaining for years that they are at the end of the Central Hudson circuit and if anything goes wrong north of that, they are out. He said that he thought it should be given serious consideration.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the Board would be receiving topo maps.

Mr. Wegner said that they should have a complete set, but they would be receiving them in the new submission.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they would be getting a new set of plans.

Mr. Wegner said yes, but the existing plans should have topo.

Mr. Steinmetz said that certainly with the next submission, they would make sure it is in there as well.

Mr. Gibbons said that it was a different plan than what they presented before.

Mr. Steinmetz said correct, but their submission of all of the necessary sets given to the secretary contained topo.

Mr. Gibbons said that they had many new members on the Board.

Ms. Doherty said, and this is a brand new submission.

Mr. Steinmetz said that he wanted to try to map out with the Board procedurally as to how they were going to move forward. He said that they have a revised submission, and they will make some changes basically in response to Mr. Allen’s memo. Mr. Steinmetz said that they have the environmental assessment form and there was never a SEQRA determination made prior to their pulling themselves off the agenda when they went back with their client and revisited all the comments they’d received. Mr. Steinmetz said that obviously, he would assume the Board would want some guidance from Mr. Cleary, but the Board needed to get to the Determination of Significance.

Ms. Doherty asked if he meant this application.

Mr. Steinmetz said correct.

Ms. Doherty explained that they had to go through Parts 1 and 2, then Part 3, which addresses it, and then have a public hearing and stated that they plan to handle it as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Steinmetz said that this was not a new application, but was simply a modification (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Doherty said that was what she had just asked, and that he was not considering this a new application.

Mr. Steinmetz said that if she had asked him, he did not hear it. He said no, this was not a new application. Mr. Steinmetz said that this was a modification of the prior application directly in response to comments they received from the Board, members of the public, and the Board’s consultants. He said that they never formally withdrew, terminated the prior application, and have not, as he understood it, resubmitted any documentation or forms that would lead the Board to believe that it was a new application. Mr. Steinmetz said that this was an amended application directly in accordance with Mercy v. McNally, which is ironically a case that Ms. Doherty knew was established in the Town of Philipstown. He said that it is a very important case that basically says that during the New York State Environmental Review Process, there is supposed to be an open and deliberative process between the applicant and the Board that the community can participate in and part of that process is to allow the applicant to respond and make changes, specifically environmentally mitigative changes. Mr. Steinmetz said that is exactly what has happened, he did not know why the Board would think it was a new application, and if it did, he was glad they could clear that up.

Ms. Doherty said that it was her understanding that they withdrew the last application. She said that in either case, the Board’s legal counsel was not present and they had to review the

process with him and with Mr. Cleary, who is going to represent the Board as its Planner.

Mr. Steinmetz said that the Board had indicated that it intends to conduct a public hearing.

Ms. Doherty said that was her understanding, but again, she looked upon this as a new application, as it had certainly changed enough from the prior application.

Mr. Steinmetz said that he did not agree with that and wanted to make sure the Board knew that. He said that this was a modification of a pre-existing preliminary plat that was submitted, reviewed, comments...he anticipated that the Board would ask for a public hearing and did not think that would be inappropriate. Mr. Steinmetz said that they were certainly not trying to preclude the public from commenting on it. He said that obviously the Board is going to comment on it and its consultants need to comment on it, and they have no objection to that, but there is no basis as a matter of law to return to step one, when what they’ve done is precisely respond to comments they’ve received, and he will discuss that with Mr. Pagones and Mr. Cleary. Mr. Steinmetz asked that if the Board was going to conduct a public hearing, it schedule the public hearing for the earliest possible date, as the Board was aware that the application had been there for an awfully long time.

Mr. Doherty asked that Mr. Steinmetz make sure that Mr. Cleary has a complete package from him.

Mr. Steinmetz asked that they be placed on the next possible agenda after Mr. Wegner resubmits, and schedule the public hearing at the earliest possible date.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board would wait until it received the changes.

Mr. Allen addressed Ms. Doherty and said that the Part 3 EAF, which the Board would rely on in terms of the SEQRA determination, should be updated with regard to their comments.

Dennis Santucci Contracting Corp. - Approval of Access 10&14 Ridge Road, Garrison: Submission of Site Plan Profile Details

Mr. Santucci stated that Lake Drive was primarily an asphalt drive and at this point, needs some repairs. He said that at the first meeting, they basically wanted to fix the potholes, get access approval to Aqueduct Street and create a new home. Since that time, they went to a couple of meetings and the Board made comments, so they came up with an application. Mr. Santucci said that it is asphalting, bringing the road up to a fourteen percent grade from Aqueduct Street to the point of his driveway, creating a crown for water to run off, and creating an earth swale so the drainage ends up in the existing culvert and goes back down to the lake. He said that they went to Wetlands with the wetland application. Mr. Santucci referred to the plan, pointed to a corner of the driveway, and stated that it was going to be asphalted through the wetland buffer a hundred feet. He said that Wetlands did not like the idea, but after a couple of meetings, they decided it was the best place for the driveway, so they granted it. He said that he needs a wider road and presented a plan.

Mr. Merante said that again, they get back to the issue of what constitutes improvement to the road, what is acceptable, and how the Board goes about granting access on the road, which is a private road with fourteen homes on it. He said that they had talked about getting together with the Town Board to discuss the issues with regard to road improvement, but and have not been able to do that yet. Mr. Merante said that he thought the issues had to be clarified.

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Merante if he was indicating that he would want to hold up this process.

Mr. Merante said that he thought they needed to have it determined as to whether the Board could grant access on a private road with ten homes that is unimproved. He said that there are other roads in Continental Village where the same questions came up in the past and people talked about turning the road over to a Town Road. Mr. Merante said that Mr. Santucci and Mr. Timmons came before the Board and talked about improving the road. He asked how they would improve the road to their home and said that everyone beyond that would also use that road. Mr. Merante said that he thought there were a lot of questions that needed to be answered.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought that was one of the things requested at last month’s meeting - some kind of a road maintenance agreement, which the Board cannot force.

Mr. Miller said that he sent a letter to the Town Board requesting a meeting and expressing concern about the need for some sort of consistent specifications in a situation where people are requesting access on these private roads, and in many instances, the roads are serving far more than what was ever anticipated in the open development area regulations. He said that it seemed like the Board had a couple of options. Mr. Miller said that the applicant had made a proposal and the Board could either accept or deny it. He said that the Board can request that the applicant stay on hold until the Planning Board meets with the Town Board and develops some specifications and works out whatever mechanisms may need to be worked out - maintenance agreements, etc. Mr. Miller said that the Board may tell the applicant that it wants a road built to a higher standard than what he’s proposing. He said that they had talked about a sixteen or eighteen foot wide pavement box in order to accommodate as an alternative the amount of activity that would be on a road serving this number of residences. Mr. Miller said that those are some potential options that the Board needed to make a decision on.

Ms. Doherty asked if Mr. Miller believed the plan for storm water runoff was adequate.

Mr. Miller said that he did not think the plan really addressed storm water runoff. He said that the applicant was showing a drainage swale on the eastern side of the road, but he was not sure where that drainage swale drains to. Mr. Miller asked if it went to a culvert and then went into the pond.

Mr. Santucci said that there is a culvert just beyond the driveway. He said that everything on the left side of the road is going to drain toward the pond automatically because they are creating a crown in the road. Mr. Santucci said that everything on the right side is going to drain into the swale and ultimately end up in the culvert and go down - whatever the ground doesn’t absorb.

Mr. Miller asked if the entire right side actually had a positive pitch to the swale, because as he recalled from site visits they made earlier this year, there was an area in front of the existing lot that appears to ice up, and it was one of the reasons that road has potholed up.

Mr. Santucci said that was this area (pointed out). He said that this area (pointed out) will be graded down to meet the (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said, so the entire road from the Town road to the applicant’s driveway and the ditch will have a pitch back to the culvert.

Mr. Santucci said correct. He said that this application was first presented in March, and he understood that the Planning Board wanted to meet with the Town Board, but the application was pre-existing to that. Mr. Santucci said that they have the wetland area and the Planning Board said that it doesn’t want anything in the wetlands, but talked about widening the road and impacting the wetlands. He said that was why he came up with this, which has no impact to the wetlands at all.

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Board would be the approving agency on a wetland permit, and activities in the buffer of the wetland need to be balanced with issues of public safety. He said that he was not sure that a narrower pavement box in light of the wetland buffer impact is offset by the public safety aspect of this project. Mr. Miller said that he also understood and thought the Board understood the applicant was interested in getting a decision. He said that he had been there for a couple of months, which is actually a relatively short period of time - all things considered. Mr. Miller said that he had identified the options and that it was up to the Board to decide how it wanted to go with this.

Mr. Brower said that as was stated at the last meeting, Aqueduct and most of the roads in that area are no more than fourteen feet wide.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought they needed to address whether the Planning Board had the authority to put this application on hold until (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that he was not aware of any time lines that are outlined in the Code as it relates to an approval of access. He said that he thought the Board had an administrative responsibility to review the application and move it along, and he believed that the Board was doing that.

Ms. Doherty said that there is no SEQRA involved as far as SEQRA determination.

Mr. Miller said that he did not believe so.

Mr. Meehan asked if the Town Board had responded to Mr. Miller’s memo.

Mr. Miller said yes, and they gave some dates for possible workshops. He said that his secretary has been trying to set something up, but he was not sure where it stood.

Ms. Doherty asked if they were talking about a month, eight months - any idea.

Mr. Miller said that he did not look at the dates.

Mr. Merante asked, even if they set up expeditiously a meeting between the Boards, they were talking about O.D.A. changes, law changes, and road specification changes - things that would not happen overnight.

Mr. Miller said that he was not sure it was an O.D.A. change. He said that there are a number of private roads in Continental Village and they have done a study which was provided to the Planning Board that he thought outlined a large number of very small lots on these roads. Mr. Miller said that this might be a local law that talks about the number of homes and specifications for a road. He said that this goes beyond the Planning Board and goes beyond Town Planner. Mr. Miller said that it is a combination of Town policy, legal aspects, planning issues, and health and safety issues that all really need to be looked at on a larger scale.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board had to decide tonight whether it wanted to wait and speak with the Town Board or continue to review the applications with the current standards.

Mr. Gibbons responded (inaudible).

Mr. Meehan said that if the Board went ahead and approved this, they would open the flood gates. He said that he really thought they should meet with the Town Board first, as this wasn’t the only road there.

Mr. Merante said yes, he thought it was incumbent upon the Planning Board to meet with the Town Board as it was an issue that needed to be clarified, but was concerned about the applicant wanting to wait for this process.

Ms. Doherty said that if they sat down with the Town Board, they would see how the thinking is going and what standards they were thinking about, and at that point in time, Mr. Santucci would be perfectly able to perhaps comply with (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Santucci said that he sat there last month when Mr. Simmons had his proposal, and the Planning Board talked about meeting with the Town Board and said that they would get there within the next two weeks. He said that now it is a month later and they haven’t even thought about meeting with the Town Board.

Ms. Doherty said that the Planning Board had thought about it, have some dates, but there are about fifteen people that they’re trying to get together.

Mr. Santucci said that he understood that, but he was not subdividing. He said that he just wants access.

Ms. Doherty said that she understood. She said that this was an ongoing problem and that she thought he may not have to wait for the actual local law if, in deed, they know what they want to do.

Mr. Miller said that he thought if they were talking about an eighteen foot wide travel box, then the Board would really have an alternative to look at that was above and beyond the open development area standards, but it is very clear that the open development area standards set forth something for a four lot subdivision and an eight lot subdivision, and the Code specifically talks about a wider alternative if in the Board’s view it is necessary. He said that he thought when you have a road that is serving fourteen homes, a fourteen foot wide travel way is minimal and the applicant can certainly indicate a willingness to go to eighteen feet on the pavement, and that may change their thinking in terms of how they address this particular situation, but if it is not something they are willing to do, they really needed to sit down with the Town.

Mr. Santucci said that it was a fourteen foot wide road now. He said that if he put four feet of (inaudible) alongside of it, they’d end up with an eighteen foot paved road. Mr. Santucci asked what the Board was looking for. He said that he had been in front of the Board since March.

Mr. Meehan asked the applicant if this was a home he was building for himself and if he was going to move into it within the next year.

Mr. Santucci said that he was not sure.

Mr. Meehan asked what kind of a hardship the Board was putting on him.

Mr. Santucci said that the hardship is that he has a closing date on the two lots and has either got to perform or let them go.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought that the Board indicated that it wanted more than a fourteen foot width. She said that an eighteen foot width may, in deed, (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Santucci said, and then you’re going to be affecting the wetlands.

Ms. Doherty said that as Mr. Miller stated, the Planning Board is the authority and would be the Board that would give the wetlands permit. She said that there were certain safety issues and at some point in time, you have to start balancing the affect on the wetlands and safety issues.

Mr. Santucci said that he understood, but every road up there is no wider than fourteen feet.

Ms. Doherty said that it doesn’t mean they have to perpetuate.

Mr. Santucci asked if he had a four foot shoulder on this road, he’d be good to go.

Ms. Doherty said that there are drainage issues.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought the Board talked about meeting with the Wetlands Committee. He said that things have to move on and should not be held up. Mr. Gibbons said yes, the Board can ask him to upgrade it and whatever it wants on the road, but they haven’t discussed the new road standards for Continental Village. He said that future applicants should be held responsible for that - not the people that are already in the pipeline.

Ms. Doherty said but, they don’t have to wait until a code changes in order to ask an applicant to provide other improvements.

Mr. Gibbons said that was what he was saying.

Mr. Miller said that for the Board’s information, the typical cross section for a residential street, which is shown in the Town Code (Chapter 150), would be any street that would be established as a public right-of-way for potential dedication to the Town - two ten foot travel lanes and two six foot shoulders. Mr. Miller said that they can do a Town street for a six lot subdivision, an eight lot subdivision - a ten, twelve, fourteen, as long as it’s considered to be a residential street - not a collector. The minimum specification would be two ten foot travel lanes and two six foot shoulders. He said you cannot build fourteen lots on a fourteen foot wide street under any circumstance anywhere in the Town of Philipstown.

Mr. Gibbons said that he thought that was the main question. He said that they have certain restrictions on the number of houses that are allotted to O.D.A.’s and when they reach capacity, they have no more development.

Mr. Miller said that he did not think anybody was talking about that. He said that he thought they were saying that if you want to build more than what is the limit, you have to bump up the standard for the street. Mr. Miller said that he thought the Board was saying to Mr. Santucci that a nine foot lane travel way with a three foot shoulder would be adequate in light of the fact that you’ve got fourteen existing homes on this private road for which there is no maintenance agreement, there is nobody taking care of it from year to year, it is a nightmare for everyone living on it, and there is a large number of vacant lots that are still there that other people are going to build on. Mr. Miller said that this is an opportunity for the Town in small increments to get this road improved with a long term possibility of something being done with it.

Ms. Doherty asked the Board members if they were going to wait until meeting with the Town Board, or continue to review this application.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought they could ask the applicant to make the improvements to the road that Mr. Miller suggested.

Mr. Merante said that the applicant has a deadline and he knows how these things move. He said that he thought it was too far down the road for the Board to continue this thing and keep it hanging there for four, five months or more.

Ms. Doherty asked if he wanted to continue approving it now without waiting to go to the Town Board.

Mr. Merante said no, he did not want to continue. He said that he wanted to make a decision. Mr. Merante said that they’ve already applied to the Town Board, and have been given some dates. He said that the Planning Board should meet with them and get this settled.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would continue the process. He said that there is a lot of paper work that they still have not reviewed.

Mr. Pidala said that he would want to meet with the Board.

Ms. Doherty said that it was 2-2, so no matter which way she went, they would not have four.

Mr. Miller said that he would set up a meeting with the Town Board.

Ms. Doherty asked if he had a memo for this application.

Mr. Miller said that it was sort of moot at this point.

Mr. Santucci asked the Board to please tell him what it wants, as he’s been there, it keeps changing, and the Board continues telling him to change it again. He said that if he can afford it, he’ll do it - if he can’t, that’s it.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the eighteen foot width had been discussed at prior meetings and that nobody is trying to be arbitrary. He said that if the Board feels comfortable with an eighteen foot width and associated drainage improvements that assures a positive drainage to the Lake, he’d be happy to put it in a letter and send it to Mr. Santucci.

The Board agreed.

A woman (unidentified) from the audience asked if the applicant got the approval, who would take over the responsibility of it.

Ms. Doherty said that is the problem.

The woman asked if there could be something put in the deed - a deed restriction that says the person must maintain the road, because it is obviously not just in front of the applicant’s house.

Mr. Miller said that he has the right of access and that gives him the right to improve it himself. He said that he would like the Board to speak to its Counsel as to whether or not you can burden one party with the maintenance obligation of a road that is serving multiple parties. Mr. Miller said that he didn’t know the answer to that and it would be a question that the Board would want to explore with the Town Board and the Town Attorney.

Referral of Local Law 175-54 - Memo dated June 14, 2004 from Edward W. Doyle

Mr. Miller said that they had looked at this before. He said that there was a very minor change in it - item 54B1, and it somewhat combined two criteria. Mr. Miller referred to the first one. He said that under B, it was a 1 and a 2, and those were combined to say less than one thousand square feet of size or replace an existing building or structure.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board members had any comments.

There were none.

Ms. Doherty asked if there were any objections.

There were none.

Mr. Meehan made a motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the letter to the Town Board. Mr. Merante seconded it. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Nextel Communications - Referral of Special Use Permit (Appeal #703) - 22 Sky Lane Terrace, Garrison: Submission

Mr. Anthony Gioffre introduced himself and stated that the application was with regard to an existing facility that Nextel has on Sky Lane Terrace. Mr. Gioffre said that in 1997, Nextel sought approval to put three antennas on this tower, which is approximately 392 feet tall. Nextel’s facility is located at 244 feet on the tower and there’s an associated (inaudible) and a shelter. In 2002, Nextel applied to upgrade and modify its facility and take down the three existing whip antennas, replace it with nine antennas and (inaudible). Mr. Gioffre said that some time later, Sprint was going through the approval process and there was a question from the ZBA as to whether or not a permit was needed, and after many months of discussion, Nextel has been fully through the process at this point to legalize its existing facility. He said that it was his understanding that all of this information was reviewed during Sprint’s proposal. Mr. Gioffre said that they were asking for a positive recommendation back to the ZBA.

Ms. Doherty asked exactly what the violation was.

Mr. Gioffre said that in 1997, an application was made to the Building Department, which predated the wireless law - the local wireless ordinance, so administrative approval was granted by the assistant Building Inspector at the time, the facility was installed. In 2002, the Building Inspector issued the building permit and a certificate of occupancy was granted. The ZBA thought that there should have been some type of review before either the Planning or Zoning Board.

Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Gioffre if he was the first applicant to put the pole up.

Mr. Gioffre said no, there is an existing 392 foot pole.

Mr. Gibbons said that he did not understand.

Ms. Doherty said that they need a special use permit or approval from the Planning Board.

She said that the Building Inspector gave them the permit.

Mr. Gioffre said that the ZBA was taking the position that effectively when the facility is modified and upgraded, that Nextel should have gone through a special permit process at that point - two years ago.

Mr. Miller said that there are no physical changes at this point. He asked if there work was done.

Mr. Gioffre said that there are no physical changes, and their work is done, they are on air and have been there since 1997. He said that their facility as it currently exists right now has been there since April of 2002 and they are asking that the Planning Board ratify and legalize the facility that’s there.

Mr. Merante asked if there was any review of the omission standards and so forth when they went from the whipped to the newer antennas.

Mr. Gioffre said that was done. He said that it was not made part of any record, but when Sprint’s facility was reviewed by the Town, Sprint’s facility (inaudible) which included Nextel’s facility.

Mr. Miller asked if there was a caretaker’s facility next to their antenna.

Mr. Gioffre replied (inaudible).

Mr. Miller asked if that caretaker was an employee of any of the providers.

Mr. Gioffre said that this was an unmanned facility and is visited approximately once a month for an hour at a time.

Mr. Miller said that access to the site is up Ridge Road.

Mr. Gioffre said from Sky Lane Terrace.

Mr. Miller asked what the condition of the road was from the end of Ridge Road to his antenna.

Mr. Gioffre said that there is an existing paved drive.

Mr. Miller said that he was concerned about that road, as it is getting used commercially now. He said that there are people that are receiving income from the rental of this pole, and people visiting it on a regular basis, and the road is in horrible condition. Mr. Miller said that he believed that someone lived up there. He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Gioffre said that they have been there since 1997.

Mr. Miller said that he made his improvements and needs to legally get an approval for that.

Mr. Gioffre said that they reserved all rights with regard to whether or not they submit an application that they do not need that meet the special permit approval. He said that they are trying to do the right thing - they submitted an application to the Town, which was not required.

Mr. Miller said that this was a referral back to the ZBA, and that his only comment is that the road is in bad shape and it needs to be tended to. He said that there is a commercial use of this property in a residential zoning district - there are people who are using it commercially to maintain the tower, and the road needs to be dealt with.

Mr. Meehan said that if it washes out and they can’t get to it, they can’t maintain it.

Mr. Miller said, neither could an emergency vehicle.

Mr. Gibbons asked who was occupying the residence.

Mr. Gioffre said that he did not know.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought the Board would want more information.

Mr. Moreinis said that there appears to be somebody living there. He said that he visited the site and spoke to the woman that was living there.

Ms. Doherty said that again, with regard to the road, it is a concern of the Board.

Mr. Gioffre said that he could pass the message along to the owner.

Mr. Miller said that this is a special permit - 175-53, and one of the standards for issuing a special permit are, “the streets serving the proposed use are adequate to carry perspective traffic...”. Also, “any building or structure in connection there with will be such that there will be adequate access to it for fire and police protection purposes”. Mr. Miller said that he would be concerned that the access for police and fire are questionable.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board agreed that it should be one of the Board’s recommendations to the ZBA.

The Board agreed.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Miller if he would prepare a memo to the Zoning Board of Appeals expressing the concerns as discussed.

Mr. Miller agreed.

Mr. Meehan made a motion authorizing the Chairman to sign the memo to the ZBA incorporating the comments discussed. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

General Dynamics Network Services, Inc. - Referral of Special use permit (Appeal #743) 1924 Route 9, Garrison: Submission

Mr. Gioffre said that this was a proposal for a new wireless facility. He said that it was his understanding that the Board had reviewed a prior Nextel application for this facility approximately a year or so ago. Mr. Gioffre said that after the Planning Board reviewed the application, Nextel withdrew the application and is now pursuing the application. They are before the ZBA and have been referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Gioffre said that there is an existing 110 foot tall monopole, stealth (inaudible) tree on the facility. The current services (inaudible) are Sprint located 107 feet above grade level. Mr. Gioffre presented the plan and said that there are reserved spaces for other carriers - Voice Stream at 97 feet, AT&T at 87 feet, and Verizon at 77 feet. He said that (inaudible) compound, which has landscaping around that.

Mr. Meehan asked they wanted to expand the maintenance service. He said that there used to be a five hundred square foot maintenance (inaudible).

Mr. Gioffre presented the plan to the Board and pointed out what currently exists at the premises. He pointed out AT&T’s proposal. Mr. Gioffre said that he believed Verizon has been approved for this location (pointed out), Nextel’s proposing its installation, move the existing landscaping, and continue landscaping around the facility, which is forty feet by forty five feet.

Mr. Meehan asked what the black box was. He asked if it was a generator.

Mr. Gioffre said that there is a receptacle for a generator, but there is no proposed permanent generator on site. He said that they did a cumulative analysis that would anticipate all the carriers there. Mr. Gioffre said that they comply with the Federal Guidelines and it alleviates 1.2302 percent of the (inaudible) by the FCC - well below the guidelines.

Ms. Doherty asked if he had any visuals of what they were proposing.

Mr. Gioffre said that the Code does not specifically require (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Doherty said that she understood, but thought the Board would like to see them.

Mr. Meehan agreed and said that there had been a lot of problems with the landscaping. He said that the vegetation was dying at one time, the fence was deteriorating, and he asked if that had been improved.

Mr. Gioffre said that he did not know whether or not it had been, but the fence would be extended and they would put new landscaping throughout.

Ms. Doherty said that she would like to see some visuals of exactly how it looks today and asked if Mr. Gioffre could somehow superimpose his plan with the landscaping, so that the Board could get a better idea.

Mr. Meehan said that with regard to the branches that are up there, the needles are falling off and are ending up on a neighbor’s roof.

Mr. Gioffre said that he could assure the Board that if Nextel was there, it would be addressed, but Nextel does not have an existing facility there. He said that they are merely seeking to collocate the facility there, and he would see what kind of information he could find out.

Mr. Miller asked how high the shed was.

Mr. Gioffre said about eleven feet.

Mr. Miller said that they had an eleven foot high shed and a six foot high stockade fence. He asked how high the proposed landscaping was.

Mr. Gioffre said that the proposed landscaping is consistent with what is on site right now. He asked if there was a direction he would like them (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that he was looking for screening - full screening. He said that he wanted to know whether or not they were putting in three foot high white pines, (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Gioffre said that they could put in some landscaping that would grow to a point that would shield the whole shelter.

Ms. Doherty said that was what they were looking for. She said that they would like some kind of a plan that the landscaping will be maintained in a regular growing condition - forever, and anything that dies would be replaced.

Mr. Gioffre said that they could put a bond for a certain period of time that landscaping would be replaced, etc.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board normally requires that a note be placed on the plan stating that the landscaping will be kept in a vigorous growing condition and anything that dies will be replaced.

Mr. Meehan said that there are three or four companies involved. He asked if there couldn’t be some kind of a common agreement to maintain the area with regard to landscaping.

Mr. Gioffre said that they have a certain leased area, but he would look into that and get an answer to that.

Mr. Gibbons asked to see something with regard to the parking.

Mr. Miller asked where the parking was for the facility.

Mr. Gioffre pointed to the existing space for parking on the plan.

Mr. Miller said that they are proposing white pines as screening materials. He said that it is a landscape plan lacking in creativity. Mr. Miller said that he thought there could be some deciduous trees scattered and asked what Mr. Gioffre would see as a minimum height for the evergreens.

Ms. Doherty asked where exactly they would be.

Mr. Miller said that they’re going outside the fence. He asked how long the existing pines had been out there.

Mr. Gioffre said that he did not know.

Mr. Merante said four years.

Mr. Miller asked if they were eight feet high yet.

Mr. Gioffre presented a picture.

Mr. Moreinis said that he thought they might be eight feet. He said that it looked like they came up a couple feet higher than the fence.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board would like to see a more detailed landscape plan and some digitals.

Mr. Miller asked if they got their power to the carriers from the lines out on Route 9.

Mr. Gioffre said that he thought it was underground.

Thomas Drumme - Minor Subdivision - Deer Hollow Road, Cold Spring: Submission of Full EAF - Parts 1, 2 and 3 and Revised Plat

Mr. Watson said that they have made some changes to accommodate better driveway rotations, which was explained in his cover letter. He said that there was a lot line change and a couple of houses changed to where they had some septic areas. Mr. Watson said that there were no substantive changes. He said that there were a couple of additional culverts that were not shown on the plan, and they added those to the plan. Mr. Watson said that they have done everything the Board had asked and submitted the Part 3 of the EAF.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board had any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution of Approval. He said that there was some discussion with regard to the homeowner’s documents and whether or not the residents occupying Lots Two, Three and Four would be able to use the trail to get access to the State lands.

Mr. Watson said that he did not recall that discussion. He said that he recalled a long discussion about the trail in general and deciding that it wasn’t a valuable option.

Mr. Miller said that he thought with that discussion there was some question he thought Mr. Drumme had addressed that related to access internally for the people that lived there, through the site to get to the State lands.

Mr. Watson said that he thought there were questions on the wetlands and disturbing the area.

Mr. Miller said that they weren’t talking about disturbing anything. He said that there is an existing road trail.

Mr. Drumme looked at the plan and said that it goes back, but doesn’t go all the way up on his property. He said that it also goes across the wetlands.

Mr. Miller said that right now, Lot One, which abuts the State lands would be the only property where someone, if they wanted to walk onto the State lands, would be able to do so. He said that if there was an easement across Lot One, people who lived on Lots Two, Three and Four, would also be able to walk across Lot One to the State lands.

Ms. Doherty asked where that easement would be.

Mr. Miller said that it could be a lot easement without having it tie into a specific location. He said that obviously if it were in the wetland or wetland buffer, it would be fairly removed from the house.

Ms. Doherty asked how they would restrict it only to the owners of the (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that it would only benefit those lots.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Drumme how he would feel about it.

Mr. Drumme responded (inaudible).

Mr. Miller briefly went over the Resolution. He said that the Board’s first action would be to adopt the Part 3 that was submitted last month.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board had any questions on the Part 3.

There were none.

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to accept the Part 3 as presented. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Merante made a motion to approve the Resolution (copy attached). Mr. Meehan seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Giachinta/Pidala - Minor Subdivision - Route 301, Cold Spring: Resolution

Mr. Pidala recused himself. He left the table.

Ms. Doherty asked if there were any additional comments on this application.

Mr. Watson said, just to say that they have been working with the Department of Transportation to get the permit in place. He said that very minor changes have occurred in grading to satisfy DOT requirements.

Ms. Doherty asked if there were any questions from the Board.

Ms. Sexton asked a question with regard to it being residential.

Ms. Doherty said that the Board had discussed that several times and there will be a note on the plat stating that it would residential use and the second thing was that the applicant would change the (inaudible).

Mr. Miller distributed the Resolution. He said that the applicant has agreed to pave the ODA road to station 10, and asked if that was on Mr. Watson’s plat.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Miller said that it needs to be a condition.

Mr. Watson said that they thought that was not going to be the situation. He said that there is only one short run of steep grade.

Mr. Miller said that it has been the Board’s policy and he thought it was decided that any road at fourteen percent would be paved. He said that he thought they had agreed to that.

Mr. Watson said that it goes out 200 feet at fourteen percent grade.

Mr. Miller said from about station 450 to station 700.

Mr. Watson said yes, that was the general area.

Mr. Miller asked what the Board wanted to do.

Ms. Doherty said that if it has been the policy, they needed to have it.

Mr. Watson said that he begged to differ about that. He referred to the plan and said that it was a relatively short one at fourteen percent grade.

Ms. Doherty asked how the Board felt.

Mr. Merante said that if they adopted a policy, he thought they should stick with it.

Mr. Watson said that again, he begged to differ. He said that he did not think it had been the Board’s practice when there have been short runs of fourteen percent grade.

Mr. Gibbons asked if there was a drainage problem.

Mr. Watson said no. He said that drainage has been provided for- there is a swale on both sides of the road that lead down to a storm water detention area.

Mr. Merante asked what the surface material was.

Mr. Watson replied (inaudible).

Mr. Merante asked if there was a means of slowing water down there besides diverting it.

Mr. Watson said that they were three foot swales. He said that they were not paved swales - any swales would just speed it up.

Mr. Merante asked if there would be a maintenance agreement.

Mr. Watson said that there will be a maintenance agreement.

Mr. Gibbons asked how far the (inaudible) was from the wetlands buffer.

Mr. Watson said that at its closest point, the traveled way to the wetlands buffer is forty feet. From the edge of the drainage swale, it is about thirty five. He said that it goes up and then down again - there is a high point running between the wetlands buffer and the swale. Mr. Watson said that the water is being directed down. He said that he thought the Board would remember that because when they had their field visit, he pointed that out. Mr. Watson said that they have a high point on the road side, so you won’t see the cars as much. He said that it is in a cut, it stays in a cut, so the water won’t run right into the wetland buffer. Mr. Watson said that it will run down the side of the road.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would have to agree that they have gone to the paved surfaces on the fourteen percent grade, but he thought that was more for environmentally sensitive areas. He said that this is totally outside the wetlands buffer and aesthetically he knows a lot of people prefer dirt roads, and if the applicant is willing to do the paving, that would be fantastic.

Mr. Giachinta said that one of the reasons they were against the paving was that it is a safety issue as far as the bottom lot. He said that it is going to be a horse pasture with the house. Mr. Giachinta said that the other lot on the other side of the road is also going to be horse pasture. He said that when the riders take the horses up the hill, it is going to be a dangerous situation, and that was the main issue - is was not the money.

Ms. Doherty asked about the possibility of putting as a condition some kind of a road maintenance agreement.

Mr. Miller said yes, that was really the issue - fourteen percent grades wash out.

Ms. Doherty asked if they could somehow incorporate that into a condition.

Mr. Miller said that it was up to the Board. He said that one of the problems they have in Continental Village is that there is nobody maintaining the roads, so you need a simple HOA document in that instance. Mr. Miller said that there is a simple form of filing an HOA document with the Attorney General’s Office. He said that it obligates everybody to participate in the maintenance of the road, and it is certainly an option.

Ms. Doherty said that she would like to see that done with every subdivision - making that a condition.

Mr. Watson said that he thought that was a good idea. He said smaller ones could be handled with a Declaration of Covenants Restrictions.

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Miller to add that as another condition.

Mr. Watson said that it was in the owner’s best interest too, because he’s not stuck with the maintenance for the rest of his life.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board agreed.

The Board agreed.

Mr. Miller said that there were two other items that were in the minutes as conditions. Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Watson had a note on the plan that affirmatively states that Lot Five would not be able to take access from Route 301.

Mr. Watson said that he did not remember, but they certainly granted one.

Mr. Miller said that he thought that would be another note. He said that at the last meeting, in Mr. Watson’s EAF, he talked about the fire retention basins and having the Wetland Inspector do inspections on behalf of the Town to assure that they’re installed in accordance with the intentions with them. Mr. Miller said that he would also include a condition to set up an escrow account that had the inspection take place. He said that someone needs to report to the Planning Board that it’s been done properly.

Ms. Doherty asked if they needed a bond.

Mr. Miller said that it would be one way of guaranteeing it. He asked what the size of the basin was.

Mr. Watson said 3900 feet.

Mr. Miller said, so it would be about a $4000.00 bond. It would be an escrow account for $1000.00 for monitoring, and a $4000.00 bond to guarantee completion. He said that based on a kind of rule of thumb, it is a tenth of an acre and it is about $40,000.00 an acre to plant up a retention basin. He went through the rest of the Resolution with the Board. Mr. Miller referred to Lot Five taking access from the ODA road and asked if that required a waiver.

Mr. Watson said that he did not believe so. He said that he believed that was provided for in the Code because it is on a State road.

Mr. Miller said that the first point of Resolution should be the adoption of a Negative Declaration, which is attached.

Ms. Doherty asked about having a note on the plat that Mr. Gibbons mentioned earlier with regard to it stating it would be residential.

Mr. Watson said that with regard to it not being used for commercial or industrial uses, there are going to be agricultural uses on the site. He said that he knew the Board did not mean to restrict that. Mr. Watson said that he just didn’t want it to become a restriction, as he was going to have a horse farm there. He said that it would still be a use other than strictly residential.

Ms. Doherty suggested that they just put horse barn (inaudible). She asked the members if there were any questions.

There were none.

Mr. Merante made a motion to adopt the Resolution (copy attached) granting final conditions approval as amended. Mr. Gibbons seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Recused

Pat Sexton - In favor

Mr. Pidala joined the table again.

Indian Brook Road, LLC - Approval of a Minor Subdivision as a Final Plat - Route 9, Garrison: Resolution

Mr. Pidala recused himself from this application and left the table.

Mr. Watson stated that he believed there had not been any changes since last month in the plans.

Mr. Miller distributed a Resolution and stated that is was a somewhat complicated Resolution and the Board would have to bear with him because they have some things connected with it that they had not gone over. He asked Mr. Watson what the last revision date of the plan was.

Mr. Watson stated May 5, 2004.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would like it on record that the minutes of last month indicated him voting in favor of the EAF and that it may have been his initial vote, but as he had indicated, he thought it was something (inaudible) because of his newness on the Board. He said that he did not understand at the time of the vote and tried to change his vote, but the minutes indicated that he voted in favor of the EAF. Mr. Gibbons said that he really didn’t and thought that there were problems with this.

Mr. Miller said, so the vote was four to one - it still passed. He read the Resolution aloud. Mr. Miller stated that they would need Putnam County Health approval and a sign-off from the Department of Planning, they need a note indicating the fertilizers on septic fields, and a note regarding site specific erosion control (items d, e and f). He said that they need a blasting note and a note stating all utilities will be placed underground.

Mr. Watson stated that he thought they agreed that Lot Four would go into the ground. He said that they really don’t want to remove the poles now - it’s just extra work and is not necessary. Mr. Watson said that they looked into the damage with the poles in the wetlands and the poles don’t threaten the wetlands, which was the major concern there.

Mr. Miller said that he thought the issue was the utilities and he suggested that all future subdivisions have utilities underground. He said that you put these utility poles in a forested setting and they are constantly coming down because of icing and problems of that nature, so it is for all the parties that live there and their long-term convenience and health and safety.

Ms. Doherty said, and aesthetics.

Mr. Miller said that actually, they didn’t have a note on the other subdivision, as he recalled.

Mr. Pagones agreed.

Ms. Doherty said that they spoke about it with regard to Santucci.

Mr. Merante said that Mr. Miller made a good point earlier with regard to “future developments”, and that this is a future development and is still in the very beginning stage. He said that the electrician on the Board made a very good point - it should be underground, and he totally agreed with him.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agreed.

The applicant said that prior to the start of this, they spoke to the Central Hudson representatives and the public service commission of the code and their department said that a subdivision of up to four houses is not to be placed in the ground. The applicant said that based on that, they proceeded. He said that when the subdivision is complete, they will buy back/maintain all of the poles and the lines. It will become their property.

Ms. Doherty said that it was their requirement.

Mr. Ferdico said and the public service commission.

Ms. Doherty said right...that was not the Planning Board.

Mr. Ferdico said that he was just trying to present to the Board why they proceeded along those lines. He said that the poles were there for at least two years or perhaps longer, and they have had no problems whatsoever with the storms, etc.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought the Board had mentioned it before - it was not the first they had talked about it, with regard to making a commitment that it would like to see all future subdivisions having the utilities underground. It’s for aesthetic reasons as well as safety.

Mr. Ferdico said that he understood, but aesthetically the poles fit right in. He said that he thought they agreed to, from the cul-de-sac up to the proposed Lot Four, that they did put that underground.

Mr. Merante said that going up to “Dick’s Castle” they ran a channel up and all utilities went in there. He said that while this thing is open, before any more poles are put in, it is the time to do it.

Mr. Ferdico said that they agreed to do that from the cul-de-sac up to Lot Four.

Ms. Doherty said again, that from what she’s hearing this evening, the Board would like to see it underground.

Mr. Ferdico asked if he understood that they were to take the (inaudible) off now and bury (inaudible) for the main entrance. He asked if that was what the Board was recommending.

Mr. Merante said that now they are talking about something totally different - it is a four lot (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Ferdico said that it was somewhat confusing. He asked why it was all right for the poles to be there already on Lot Three and when they go to four, (inaudible).

Mr. Merante asked how the applicant serviced the utility lines to Lots One and Two.

Mr. Ferdico said that the services would go underground.

Mr. Merante said, but the (inaudible) are still going to be out on the road.

Mr. Ferdico said that they would still be there, but from the poles to the home, they’d be underground. He said that again, he thought they agreed from the cul-de-sac up to Lot Four, it would be put underground to meet the requirement. Mr. Ferdico said that now they want everything underground, which means ripping everything out and burying everything all over again. He said that it was not only costly, but he thought unnecessary.

Mr. Miller said that he thought in terms of fair play, the prior two subdivisions the Board approved tonight did not have a note requiring that utilities be placed underground, so it would almost appear that in light of the fact that these utilities are above-ground, they’ve already been paid for, etc., and kind of gets outside the (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Doherty said, because they’re existing.

Mr. Miller said yes. He said that right now the other two subdivisions...they didn’t put a restriction on them, which was his mistake. Mr. Miller said that perhaps a reasonable compromise was to extend to Lot Four underground and allow the three lots to be served by the (did not finish).

Ms. Doherty and Mr. Watson said that is what they agreed to.

Mr. Meehan said that he thought this was a good time to put the stake in the ground and say that from here on in (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller said that he thought this was a good time to do it, but thought it might be better to do it after the Board acts on this, for all future things and that way they can make sure that as a condition, it will be on all future subdivisions.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board agreed with that.

The Board agreed.

Mr. Miller said that there was already a note on the plan regarding the location of pavement on the ODA road and on the driveway and asked Mr. Watson if that was correct.

Mr. Watson agreed.

Mr. Miller said that they have blasting notes, a recreation fee of $10,500.00 and asked if there were any additional comments.

Mr. Watson said that he would like at least the opportunity to have their attorney look at it and monitor the agreement.

Mr. Miller asked if he did not want the board to take action.

Mr. Watson said that he would like it to take action, but he would like at least the opportunity to have their attorney look at this.

Mr. Miller said that he could do that anyway, and if he wanted the Board to take action, he can take action, otherwise they could give them an extension, have his attorney look at it and come back and talk to the Board. He asked Mr. Watson what he wanted to do.

Mr. Watson said that he thought that the Board could act tonight and if there was something agreed (inaudible), they could still approach it from (inaudible) of the Resolution.

Ms. Doherty asked if any of the Board members had any questions.

There were none.

Ms. Doherty stated that they had a Resolution before them which would grant conditional final approval to Indian Brook Road - amended. She asked if anyone was ready to make a motion to adopt the Resolution.

No one made a motion.

Ms. Doherty said that she would make the motion. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. Ms. Doherty asked for a roll call vote. It went as follows:

Michael Gibbons - Opposed (stated that the reason being Lot Four - future drainage issues and the idea of the road going through the wetland itself, as well as potential damage to neighbors and potential damage to the house on Lot Three). He said that he felt there were other sites/other properties that should potentially be used for the lot and did not like Lot Four.

Pat Sexton - Abstained

Mr. Miller explained to Ms. Sexton that if she chose to abstain, there would be no further voting on this - the application is denied. He said that if they do not have four votes, it is over, and he expected the Town would be sued. Mr. Miller said that he just wanted everyone to understand what the voting meant, because there were only five people on the Board tonight, and they need four votes to pass any action, and with the three votes, an abstention and a no, it is the same as a denial. He said that Ms. Sexton needed to understand the circumstances and that obviously, it was her decision.

Ms. Doherty suggested they come back to Ms. Sexton.

Kerry Meehan - Opposed (stated that he agreed with Mr. Gibbons)

Ande Merante stated that he had a couple questions before he voted. He went through the minutes of the last several months and said that he was still not clear on a couple of issues. He made a reference to a “thousand foot section at fourteen percent grade - too steep, too long”...and asked what they said about paving.

Mr. Watson said they paved it.

Mr. Merante said that the utility poles and the wetlands without approval, he was not happy about, but those issues, he thought had been resolved. He said that the lot and the runoff was a problem too, so he would vote no.

Ande Merante - Opposed

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Andrew Pidala - Recused

Mr. Miller stated that he guessed the applicant’s option would be to request a vote without Lot Four, or to take an Article 78 regarding the reasoning behind the denial, so it is very important that the “no votes” express their fact-based reasons behind their denial, because that will be what is before the judge. He said that the fact-based reasons need to be environmental issues, zoning issues or subdivision issues.

Ms. Sexton that she was going to abstain because it was her very first look at this application.

She said that she was more aware of the other applications.

Ms. Doherty said that the record vote is: 3 no, 1 yes, 1 abstention, 1 absent, and 1 recused.

Mr. Pidala joined the table again.

Nicholas B. & Hanay K. Angell - Approval of a 3-Lot Subdivision - South Mtn. Pass, Garrison: Submission of Revised Application, Plans and EAF

Mr. Watson said that they made some further, very minor revisions to the property. He said that the Town recently installed a catch basin to alleviate a drainage problem and (inaudible) the water that’s in the road into their property with Mr. Angell’s permission, so they think it modifies the proposed drainage at the beginning of the road significantly, eliminating a significant amount of destruction to the property. Mr. Watson said that they had met with the Town of Cortlandt. He said that they visited the site and then went to the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Watson said that they sensed they were positive about it. He said that the Board had seen the modifications to the roadway. They’ve modified the sites very slightly to accommodate a couple of recommendations that they had gotten from the Town of Cortlandt. Mr. Watson said that right now, it is out for referral to their staff. He said that they had asked that an archeological report and a resource survey be made and that is underway. He said that they are hopeful the Board would find the application sufficiently complete, although they know the Board can’t move it along.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board had any questions.

Mr. Meehan said that the neighbor was concerned about Lot Four/additional development.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that with regard to the letter, in the very same paragraph he said that they have an eight lot restriction and they were planning several more lots. Mr. Watson said that if you divide eight into seventy-two, already they’re down to fifty-six, and have seven lots at the maximum. Mr. Watson said that he or the lawyer who wrote that may not have been aware that there’s a private road ordinance in this Town that has severe limitations. He said that when you start looking at the slopes and much of this property, it is just not reasonable to conclude that this is step one of a multi-lot subdivision. Mr. Watson said that the Angells have been in contact with the Hudson Highlands Land Trust to place restrictions on further development of this property. He said that he has advised them and thought the tax people had advised them that they’re going to try to get that done voluntarily before the subdivision is approved, so that it doesn’t have to be a condition. Mr. Watson said that they have tried to be responsive to the concerns that Mr. Miller’s office had raised, he knew that there was still concern with the steepness of some of the driveways, but was sure they would be able to work those out. He said that they have addressed the drainage issues, stayed away from the wetlands, and got off the steep slopes as much as possible. Mr. Watson said that it is unfortunate the Board didn’t have the time to look at the site. He said that it is a very restrictive piece of property, but also very thought out.

Mr. Gibbons asked if Mr. Watson would go over the emergency vehicle situation.

Mr. Watson pointed out the hammerhead and a little bit of a common driveway. He said that they can make the turns, but they could probably do something about the turnaround at the lower house.

Mr. Miller asked who provides fire and ambulance to this location in Cortlandt.

Mr. Watson said Continental Village Fire District. He said that he did not know about the ambulance service.

Mr. Merante asked Mr. Watson if he would just tell them briefly what was going on with this application in Cortlandt.

Mr. Watson said that it was referred to staff, which is a process they go though. He said that they were at two meetings - the first meeting, a site visit was scheduled, and the second meeting, they referred them to staff. Mr. Watson said that they anticipate that they’ll have a public hearing in August, and that it was subject to their getting the archeological survey back to them.

Mr. Miller asked if the only environmental issue was the archeology survey. He asked if they were doing a Part 2/Part 3 and if they had become Lead Agency yet.

Mr. Watson said that they had decided to become Lead Agency.

Mr. Miller said then they have declared their intent.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller asked if the time had come to pass.

Mr. Watson said that he did not think so.

Mr. Miller said, so they’ve not processed an EAF yet.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Miller said that if the Board had any environmental concerns, it would be prudent to correspond with the Town of Cortlandt now, before they get into the processing of an EAF. He suggested the Board direct its staff to prepare a letter outlining its environmental concerns and that they get addressed in the SEQRA process. Mr. Miller said that certainly drainage from the open development area road needed to be addressed, the (inaudible) that belongs to the dissipater and (inaudible) that would be coming there and what happens, and the capacity of the culvert that is under the road should be addressed. He said that the applicant should send the plans to the Highway Department so that they can look at it and be comfortable about the drainage that is taking place. Mr. Miller said that he would certainly express concern, even though it is not in the Town of Philipstown, with regard to the steepness of the driveways to the three lots and having some type of turnoffs for cars to pass. He said that they were pretty long retaining walls.

Ms. Doherty said that they had also mentioned it should go the Philipstown Conservation Advisory Council. She asked if the Board had any other comments.

Mr. Gibbons said that he did not know how much the Board could get into the future development of Cortlandt. He said that they had the right to develop it under Philipstown Code.

Mr. Miller said that the Board could require as a condition of its approval that no further residential development could take place off the open development area road without review by the Philipstown Planning Board.

Mr. Gibbons said that he would certainly want that.

Ms. Doherty asked if putting the utilities underground would be one of the Board’s conditions or if it was something Mr. Miller would send to Cortlandt.

Mr. Miller said, why not tell them.

Ms. Doherty said also, the Board was concerned that fire vehicles would have enough turnaround and parking area. She asked Mr. Miller to write up a letter.

Mr. Brower referred to the emergency services and asked that the Board had them clarify the ordinance because he believed that the Town of Cortlandt is served by Peekskill.

Mr. Merante said that he thought they had a grey area with the electrical service too, because he knew Central Hudson service physically stops at the County line, and these residences are in Westchester.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board members wanted to have a site visit or visit on their own.

Mr. Merante asked if anything cut in.

Mr. Watson said that there is a path from the house passed the tennis court. He said that if they were to walk the road route, which is flagged, it is a little more difficult, but it was quite easy to get back there.

The Board members agreed to meet on their own.

Mr. Miller said that question is, when is the public hearing. He said that if the Board were to open a public hearing now, it would probably want to keep it open until Cortlandt acts and gets to the environmental stuff, so the applicant may want to hold off asking for a public hearing until such time as he’s developed his information from Cortlandt.

Mr. Watson said that he did not have a problem with that.

Ms. Doherty asked if he wanted to set something up tentatively now or wait.

Mr. Watson said that he thought they could look for a September date for a public hearing, as he thought they would be sufficiently far along into Cortlandt.

Ms. Doherty said, and if for some reason they are not, to please let the Board know.

Margaret B. Tomann - Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision - Old Albany Post Road, Garrison: New Submission

Mr. Watson said that they were there for the Board’s completeness review, but would like to take the Board through the project. Mr. Steve Tomann had agreed to buy his mother’s house, his mother and brother will build a house on the north side of the property, and in order to do that, they made a subdivision application. There is about ten acres. They are going to divide it into approximately 6.8 and 3.3, which may vary as they do more investigation. Mr. Watson said that they’ve opted to provide (inaudible) lot and a common access easement for one specific reason. With that, they feel that the driveway is adequate to service two homes and if they were to do a fifty foot wide right-of-way with a turnaround, they would be doing a fair amount of construction across the stream and through a two hundred foot wetland buffer. Mr. Watson said that this lets them avoid that. He said that functionally, it will still be there because they have a road, there is a turnaround at the end that will be available, and it is a pretty simple new single family lot to be constructed.

Ms. Doherty asked if there were questions from the Board.

Mr. Gibbons asked how wide the current travelway was.

Mr. Watson said that it is about twelve feet wide.

Mr. Gibbons said that he wasn’t quite sure about the easement portion.

Mr. Watson said that it says what is the maximum development if developed under the present zoning, and it is approximately three - it was just an estimate.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they intended to (inaudible) about three lots.

Mr. Watson said no.

Mr. Gibbons (inaudible) to two.

Mr. Watson said that he would have to ask his client.

Mr. Gibbons said that he did not understand why they were putting in an easement.

Mr. Watson explained that there is only one driveway. He said that if you were to leave the house, you’d go up a single driveway - there is only one option. Mr. Watson referred to the plan and said that at a point (pointed out), which is about 120/130 feet off the road, the driveway splits. Generally speaking, the family uses the driveway to the southeast.

Mr. Gibbons said that he did not realize it already existed.

Mr. Watson said that both of them exist. He said that their effort was to make no change at all.

Mr. Gibbons asked if they needed wetland requirements.

Mr. Watson said no, that’s why they didn’t do an open development area road, because they would have had to widen the road and have construction through the wetland buffer.

Mr. Miller said that a public hearing could be set for July.

R&G Wrought Iron Railing, Inc. - Site Plan Application - Route 9, Cold Spring: New Submission

Mr. Watson introduced the President of R&G Wrought Iron Railing Inc., Mr. Martini. He said that Mr. Martini is a tenant on the property and he believed he intends to purchase it. Mr. Watson said that he operates in the stone building and he pointed out the residential building off on the site. He said that they were seeking a variance. Mr. Watson said that they have been denied by the Building Inspector, but the ZBA wants this to be before the Planning Board before they’ll hear it. He said that Mr. Martini intends to construct an addition to the building, which requires several setback variances. Mr. Watson said that they were seeking a variance to put a twenty by twenty-four foot building within seven feet of the Old Postal Road, within one and a half feet of Route 9.

Mr. Merante asked how many variances they would need.

Mr. Watson said two, he believed.

Ms. Doherty asked if there were any violations on the property now.

Mr. Martini said that as soon as he got the violation, he applied for the addition.

Ms. Doherty said, so he was not in court with the violation.

Mr. Martini said no.

Mr. Watson said that they don’t need any action from the Planning Board other than to say it’s not eligible for its consideration because of the violation on record, so they can continue with the Zoning Board.

Mr. Gibbons asked how that worked.

Mr. Miller said that they require a site plan approval from the Planning Board but they’ve proposed a site plan that doesn’t conform with zoning because of the nature of the lot, so in order for them to be eligible for the Planning Board to consider it, they’ve got to secure a variance from the Zoning Board first. He said that all the Board is doing is saying that it can’t entertain the plan - it doesn’t conform to the zoning law, and that’s what they are looking for.

Mr. Gibbons asked if when it comes back, they will not just looking at the addition, but the entire lot.

Mr. Miller said yes.

Mr. Watson said but, if they were successfully getting the variance, the fact that they are too close to the road under the current code, wouldn’t be an issue.

Mr. Gibbons said that he understood.

Mr. Merante asked what the zoning was.

Mr. Watson said B-2.

Mr. Miller asked the applicant if he was acquiring the whole property including the commercial buildings and residences, and so forth.

Mr. Martini said yes.

Mr. Miller said to be aware that the issue of the unrestricted access along the State highway is going to be a matter that the Planning Board will need to deal with, as they did with the Philipstown Farm Market - they required the entire frontage to be curbed with one single driveway curb cut onto the State highway.

Mr. Gibbons said that the issue of parking/handicapped parking as well. He asked if this was a non-conforming lot.

Mr. Miller said yes. He referred to the concrete island with metal posts and asked if it used to be a gas station.

Mr. Merante said yes.

Mr. Miller asked if there were tanks.

Mr. Martini said that he believed so.

Mr. Miller asked if the applicant had had them tested.

Mr. Martini said no.

Mr. Miller said that if they are still in the ground, he’d recommended they be tested, as he wouldn’t want to buy this if those tanks have any material in them, there’s been leakage out there and someone’s going to have to clean it up. He said that the Planning Board will, he expected, ask for the results of that test.

Mr. Martini said that he was told they were filled with sand.

Mr. Miller said that was a good thing. He said that if they are and he had documentation to that effect, that’s what the Town would need to see.

Mr. Merante asked if the issue of the curbs was something the Planning Board would insist on or if it would be the D.O.T.

Mr. Miller said that he would recommend that the Planning Board insist on that.

Ms. Doherty said that they would also probably look into some kind of access from Postal Road.

Mr. Miller said that there is a commercial use there and they are on a State highway.

Mr. Meehan asked how many acres there were.

Mr. Miller said less than half.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the end was going to become a cul-de-sac as well.

Mr. Watson said that he thought there was a time when that was going to happen, but he believed that there is going to be some sort of through road there.

Mr. Gibbons said that he met with Putnam County D.O.T. and they had both closed down.

Mr. Watson said that was correct, but he was just asked to do a revision to their taking that because they were going to close off the road that goes in back of Harold Lyons’ garage and finally figured out that when they did that, they would only have half the road to get his trucks out of the garage and it doesn’t work. So they are leaving that open. Mr. Watson said that where they’ll make the connection, he was not certain.

Mr. Meehan asked how the spray booth was regulated.

Someone (inaudible) said that it was actually controlled by the Department of Health.

Mr. Meehan said that it has to be ventilated.

Mr. Watson said yes, there are filters and ventilation.

Mr. Miller said that they need a variance before these things is really right and suggested that the Board vote that the application was not eligible for the Board’s consideration.

Ms. Doherty asked for a motion stating that R&G Wrought Iron Railings application is not eligible for consideration as it does not conform with the Code. Mr. Meehan made the motion. It was seconded by Ms. Sexton. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Susan Preisler - Approval of Access - 363 Route 301, Cold Spring: New Submission

Mr. Watson introduced the applicant and stated that she inherited the property from her parents. Mr. Watson pointed out the home - the old farmhouse and the separate piece that remains. He said that it is on Rockwald Road. It is a fairly long private road and services a total of seven lots today. He said that it was originally approved in 1976 - there were two lots on the subdivision map filed in 1976. Mr. Watson said that Mr. Krause made a second application and Lots D through E were approved. Those lots are very large lots - 15, 20, 25 acres.

Ms. Doherty asked when that was.

Mr. Watson said that was in 1979. He said that there was a waiver granted on the basis of the size of the lots.

Ms. Doherty asked if the waiver was the number of houses using the right-of-way.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that they have two options. They could design another curb cut. Mr. Watson said that their option is to go to the State and perhaps come in there, or to seek the Board’s approval for access on the basis of it being a corner lot. They have rights to the road. He said that they thought it would be a better situation if they could utilize the existing driveway as opposed to going through another curb cut. Mr. Watson said that they are seeking the Board’s approval of access for that reason.

Ms. Doherty asked if originally it was an ODA road.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Ms. Doherty asked, after 1960.

Mr. Watson said yes - it is under the four-lot rules. Mr. Watson said that he could only think of five houses up there.

Mr. Merante said, but there are seven lots.

Mr. Watson agreed.

Mr. Pidala asked if the neighbors needed to be notified.

Mr. Watson said that he did not believe they had to notify them. He said that it is clear in the deed that there is a right to use this road. Mr. Watson said that, in fact, it was curios...in looking at the subdivision they had in 1975, there is no Lot One. He said that the second one was A through E. So there’s five and two - that’s seven. Mr. Watson pointed out what would be the eighth lot.

Ms. Doherty asked where the lot came from.

Mr. Watson said that the lot was there in 1975 for sure.

Ms. Doherty said, but with no driveway.

Mr. Watson said no driveway. He said that Jim Anderson had done a survey before he started his practice, and it was sold off around 1970, but wasn’t absolutely sure.

Mr. Meehan referred to the plan and asked if it said R-80.

Mr. Watson said that it might be industrial.

Mr. Gibbons said that provided that this is where the driveway was going to go (pointed out), one section of the house is touching the stone wall. He asked if there was a reason the house was (inaudible).

Mr. Watson said that they could do that. He presented the improvement plan and stated that it was in the Board’s packages. Mr. Watson said that it wouldn’t be much of an effort.

Mr. Gibbons said that with regard to the cut on the right-of-way, it was very close to a bend in the road. He asked if the sight line for people coming out towards 301 was acceptable or if the road should be moved down a little bit further.

Mr. Watson said that honestly, he did not know what the sight line distance was, but they are on the correct side of the curb.

Mr. Merante said that he goes by Rockwald Road often and it looks like a pretty rough road. He asked if there was any kind of maintenance agreement with the seven or eight homes on it.

Mr. Watson said that he believed there was. He said that he did not know if it was formal. Mr. Watson said that they do have some arrangement, but whether or not it was on paper, he did not know. He referred to the plan, pointed to a location and said that the first approach is quite steep, but once you get to this point (pointed out), it (inaudible), and when you get further along, there are a couple of places where it is really quite steep.

Mr. Merante asked about how far in it went.

Mr. Watson said that it must go a half mile in.

Mr. Miller asked what the grade of the road up to the driveway was.

Mr. Watson said roughly fifty feet.

Mr. Miller referred to the plan, pointed out where the “o” was in Rockwald from one elevation to another, and asked what the grade of that section was.

Mr. Watson said sixteen percent.

Mr. Miller said that was what he was concerned about. He said that if the Board was going to consider approval of access for this, it has to require that the road be paved up to the driveway - it is sixteen percent grade, it is not being maintained, and it should not be treated any differently than any other.

Mr. Merante said that it is obvious when looking at it that it has not been worked on in a while.

Mr. Miller said that they have seven or eight houses using the road.

Ms. Doherty asked if the Board was required to hold a public hearing on this.

Mr. Miller said no. He said that he would recommend the Board approve it with the condition it be paved to a width of sixteen feet from the driveway to the road or alternatively ask for an improvement plan for the next meeting to consider it.

Mr. Watson said that they have no objection to the sixteen feet.

Mr. Miller said, so next month they’ll come in with an improvement plan.

Mr. Watson said if they could get a little extra time, as submission due date is the day after tomorrow.

The Board agreed that it would need to be submitted one week before the meeting.

Polhemus Construction Co., Inc. - Site Plan Application - Route 9, Cold Spring: Submission of Revised Plan

Mr. Watson said that they were in front of the Board two months ago, there had not been a lot of change, but they have evaluated the site and have a proposal for a landscaping plan, which he thought was responsive to most of the concerns that are appropriate in terms of the visual conditions to the property. He presented a plan and said that in driving in Horseman’s Trail today, you wouldn’t see anything until you got about here (pointed out), which is about 180 feet in from Route 9. He said that at that point, there is a fairly healthy stand of pine, but as pines do, they have dropped their lower branches, so they are healthy, but you can see right under them and into the yard from one point to the garage. Mr. Watson said that there are pines that are actually pretty affective as a screen and are raised up on the road a little bit. He said that as you get around to the corner of the property, approaching it from the southwest, there is an area where it is quite visible, so they concentrated a plan of both larger and smaller trees, put them behind the healthy trees, and chose plants that would fill out and block the view under the pines that have dropped their branches. Mr. Watson said that there is also planting in front of it.

Mr. Merante said that on the side, they were five to six feet high and asked if that was the size they’d be installed or the maximum growth.

Mr. Watson said that some of them are, but others are nine and ten foot high installed. He said that they are the installed height. Mr. Watson said that they made some minor modifications to the drainage.

Mr. Miller asked why they needed two accesses. He said that it just opens up more of the site to the road. Mr. Miller said that it is a small contractor’s yard. He said that they are not showing a separate access to the rental house. Mr. Miller said that he was showing two stabilized road entrances into the yard, and then a side/bypass to the rental house.

Mr. Watson said that it was really just a matter of how the operation has been working for years.

Ms. Doherty asked what they had done to address the noise.

Mr. Watson said that they hadn’t gone into the details of what it would actually be.

Ms. Doherty asked if they were planning on doing that.

Mr. Watson said yes, they were planning on doing that as part of the environmental (did not finish sentence).

Mr. Miller asked if the screens and crushers were portable and could be driven around.

Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Miller asked if they could get them on the site and start them up so they can take measurements. He said that he’d like to find out how they would operate on the site.

The applicant said that was not going to happen.

Mr. Watson said that they are not portable - they are transportable.

Mr. Miller said that his issue is the land use conflict on the site with the residential use and an industrial use and then the off-site issues with the high density residential across the street.

Mr. Watson said that there is very little of the trailer park that is visible.

Mr. Miller said that he’d be concerned about doing some noise study with their stuff down there and everything sounds o.k., but then you get it up there and the next thing you know, the Town is flooded with complaints because of the noise, let alone the on-site residential unit, which he did not think was compatible with the industrial use on the property at all.

Mr. Gibbons said that in that regard, he’d take issue in that even as kids, it is location, location, location. He said that if you are renting in an industrial site, you know what you are getting into. Mr. Gibbons said that is our choice - whether the price is right, whether the location is close to work, etc.

Mr. Miller said that he would beg to differ. He said that it is called environmental discrimination. Mr. Miller said that it happens all the time when they put sewer plants in the ghettos. He said that their job is to find land use compatibility so that people can live healthy and safely, and not because of their income levels and because they can’t afford to go somewhere else. Mr. Miller said that they can rent it for three hundred dollars a month - you are going to find someone to live there. It can stink to high heaven, but if the price is right, someone will live there. He said that he did not think that was the Planning Board’s job. Mr. Miller said that its job is to make sure there’s land use compatibility and that the environmental codes are adhered to. He said that he is asking the applicant to provide information that demonstrates that that’s the case.

Mr. Gibbons said that he agrees with those issues - that it has to be environmentally safe, pollution-wise and noise-wise. He said that he was saying that the person who occupies that home knows what he’s getting into when he’s renting it.

Mr. Meehan said that he did not know if that was true.

Mr. Gibbons said that you know immediately you’re in a gravel pit.

Mr. Merante said that it’s not in use, and hasn’t been for some time.

Mr. Watson said that it has always been used as a transfer station.

Mr. Miller said to get the facts and find out what the story is.

Ms. Doherty referred to the landscaping, and asked if that was going to comply with the Design Standards as far as height.

Mr. Watson said that he couldn’t say that he looked at that, or that Ms. Rice looked at it when she did the plan, but he could say that it will be effective as a screen. He said that he could look at that.

Ms. Doherty said, and effectively screen height of all the outdoor storage and whatever’s there.

Mr. Watson said yes. He said that probably, it’s not the height in this particular area, because if you’re driving by in a car, which is where most of the view comes from, the view that needs to be screened is low - it is three or four feet off of the ground.

Ms. Doherty said, so it will comply.

Mr. Watson said that it will certainly screen. He said that he’ll read it and tell the Board the next time. Mr. Watson referred to the plan. He pointed to specific locations and said that from there, they are protecting the Town and the citizens of the Town. He pointed to another area and said that from there, they are trying to protect them from themselves.

Mr. Miller said that if Mr. Polhemus wants to sign a stipulation and put it on the plan that he is going to live there, he did not think the Board would have as big an issue.

Mr. Watson said that it was not the issue and he knew it.

Mr. Miller asked why then he used it as an example.

Mr. Watson said that they were making an issue because this person becomes part of the property and is using the property and they can make that decision. He said that they are not talking about environmental and they are not talking about affecting other people’s values. Mr. Watson said that they are talking about their property.

Mr. Miller said that they are talking about the health and safety of people that are living there. He said that it would be no different than the health and safety of someone working there.

Mr. Meehan asked if when they operated the crusher, they used protective equipment.

The applicant said when you stand next to it, but when you’re in the loader you don’t. He said that it is not that noisy.

Ms. Doherty said that she thought the Board wanted some noise readings at the very minimum.

Mr. Merante asked if in the Code there were decibel levels at a certain distance from it.

Mr. Miller said that there are performance standards in the Code including sound levels. He said that the performance standards usually relate to the property line and this is internal to the property line.

Mr. Gibbons asked if the equipment was going to be stored in one location on the property as opposed to moving around the property.

Mr. Watson said that the equipment is going to be placed in one location.

Mr. Merante asked if the only equipment they were talking about was a screen and a crusher.

Mr. Watson said yes, they are not something you would move around.

Mr. Merante asked how far the crusher was from the nearest part of the house - approximately.

Mr. Watson said 130.

Ms. Doherty asked if with his next submission, he would be coming back with some noise levels.

Mr. Watson said that he will be talking with his client about what they’ll do next.

Mr. Gibbons said, and the hours of operation.

Ms. Sexton said that some of the plants would be eaten by deer before the winter is out.

Mr. Watson said that he would check that.

Ms. Sexton said that some of those things don’t screen very well.

Mr. Watson said that he’s not an expert, but these things are designed to fill in the gaps, so that you may have a white pine (did not finish sentence).

Ms. Doherty asked Mr. Watson if it was possible to have a landscaping plan that is more detailed, rather than just see them plotted.

Mr. Watson said sure.

Adjourn

Mr. Gibbons made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Merante seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 11:20 p.m. The vote was as follows:

George Cleantis - Absent

Josephine Doherty - In favor

Michael Gibbons - In favor

Kerry Meehan - In favor

Anthony Merante - In favor

Andrew Pidala - In favor

Pat Sexton - In favor

Respectfully submitted,

Ann M. Gallagher

Note: These minutes were prepared for the Philipstown Planning Board and are subject to review, comment, emendation and approval thereupon.

Date approved:__________________________________________

Home History Dog Control Zoning Planning Proposed Comprehensive Plan Town Clerk      Planning Board Minutes 7-29-04